DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-2 and 4-19 of copending Application No. 19/119622 in view of Bang et al (WO2021089093 cited in IDS with reference to equivalent PGPub 2022/0393210 for ease of reference with priority to October 28, 2020) or Nakashima (PGPub 2022/0153011 cited in IDS with priority to November 18, 2020).
App. 19/119622 teaches all of the instant limitations except the pressing surfaces with at least one outwardly projecting elevation and the elevations of the oppositely arranged pressing surfaces having different heights.
Bang teaches an alternative laminating apparatus (Abstract) wherein the pressing surfaces with at least one outwardly projecting elevation (Fig. 5- transverse bar 24) in order to press only into the membrane film between electrode areas but not onto the electrode area itself [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of App. 16/119622 to include at least one outwardly projecting elevation as taught by Bang with reasonable expectation of success to press only into the membrane film between electrode areas but not onto the electrode area itself [0058].
Nathanson teaches an alternative laminating apparatus (Abstract) wherein the rollers may be supplied with more than one profiled section including concave, notched and flat shapes depending on size of the rollers, length of the materials to be compressed, spacing between components, and other characteristics and the rollers may include any number of profiled sections spaced and configured to accommodate a leading edge of a segment of material to be compressed [0063]-[0064] in order to achieve the desired compaction of the material [0063]-[0064].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of App. 16/119622 and Bang to include profiling the rollers according to the characteristics of the components and materials as taught by Nathanson with reasonable expectation of success to achieve the desired compaction of the material [0063]-[0064].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 10, “the third elevation and the fourth elevation in the of the arc winding-up length” should read “the third elevation and the fourth elevation in the spread of the arc winding-up length”.
Claim 13 recited “the elevation(s) is or are arranged”. Consistent formatting of recitations of the elevations throughout the claims is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, it is unclear whether “the elevations of the oppositely arranged pressing surfaces having different heights” refers to complementary pairs of outwardly projecting elevations on respective pressing devices having different heights between the pairs or outwardly projecting elevations across a single pressing device having different heights. For examination purposes, it will be assumed the outwardly projecting elevations across a single pressing device having different heights as indicated by Fig. 1.
Claims 5 and 8 recite “the first elevation” and “the second elevation”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis as a first and second elevation were not previously recited in Claim 5 or 8 (or in Claim 1 or 4 from which Claim 5 depends; Examiner notes “at least one first and one second elevation” were previously recited in Claim 3). For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as if antecedent basis was properly established.
Claim 5 recites “the first elevation, the second elevation, the third elevation and the fourth elevation can be shaped and arranged such that they complement each other to form an elevation”. This limitation is indefinite the numbered elevations were previously recited. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted as “shaped and arranged such that they complement each other to form a complementary elevation”.
Claim 8 recites “one or both of the press rollers”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis as press rollers were not previously recited in Claim 8 (or in Claim 1 or 4 from which Claim 8 depends; Examiner notes press rollers were previously recited in Claim 6). For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as if antecedent basis was properly established.
Claim 17 and 18 recite “the pressing surface” (singular). It is unclear which of the previously recited pressing surfaces this refers to as “pressing surfaces” were previously recited in plural form. For examination purposes, the limitations will be interpreted as “the pressing surfaces are” and “the pressing surfaces have” (plural) in Claims 17 and 18, respectively.
The rest of the claims are also rejected by virtue of their respective dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nathanson (PGPub 2019/0389193 cited in IDS) in view of Bang et al (WO2021089093 cited in IDS with reference to equivalent PGPub 2022/0393210 for ease of reference with priority to October 28, 2020).
Regarding Claim 1, Nathanson teaches a laminating apparatus (Abstract) for a multilayer continuous web (Fig. 4) made up of at least one separator web ([0023]- a web of a separator) and at least one electrode ([0023]- anode and/or cathode material) for producing energy cells [0010], having a pressing device that laminates the multilayer continuous web while exerting a compressive force (Figs. 5-8),
wherein the pressing device has two oppositely arranged pressing surfaces with a structure modified from a continuous round surface (Fig. 7-8- modified section 725 of rollers), which are arranged such that when the compressive force is exerted, each comes into contact with a portion with different sides of the continuous web which adjoins an edge side of the electrode (Figs. 7-8).
Nathanson does not specify the pressing surfaces with at least one outwardly projecting elevation.
Bang teaches an alternative laminating apparatus (Abstract) wherein the pressing surfaces with at least one outwardly projecting elevation (Fig. 5- transverse bar 24) in order to press only into the membrane film between electrode areas but not onto the electrode area itself [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nathanson to include at least one outwardly projecting elevation as taught by Bang with reasonable expectation of success to press only into the membrane film between electrode areas but not onto the electrode area itself [0058].
Nathanson further teaches the rollers may be supplied with more than one profiled section including concave, notched and flat shapes depending on size of the rollers, length of the materials to be compressed, spacing between components, and other characteristics and the rollers may include any number of profiled sections spaced and configured to accommodate a leading edge of a segment of material to be compressed [0063]-[0064] thus meeting the instant limitation of the elevations of the oppositely arranged pressing surfaces having different heights.
Regarding Claim 2, Nathanson further teaches the pressing device laminates the multilayer continuous web by applying heat [0023]; [0038].
Regarding Claim 3, Nathanson does not specify at least one first and one second elevation are provided on the pressing surface, which extend in the longitudinal direction of the continuous web and are arranged at a distance from each other that is greater than the distance between the edge sides of the electrode extending in the longitudinal direction of the continuous web.
Bang teaches an alternative laminating apparatus (Abstract) wherein at least one first and one second elevation are provided on the pressing surface (Fig. 5- edge regions 25), which extend in the longitudinal direction of the continuous web and are arranged at a distance from each other that is smaller than the distance between the edge sides of the electrode extending in the longitudinal direction of the continuous web (Fig. 5) in order to press onto the corresponding edge regions of the film [0058] and eliminate critically high acid content at the edge regions [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the combination of Nathanson and Bang to include longitudinal projections that press on the edge of the membrane as taught by Bang with reasonable expectation of success to press onto the corresponding edge regions of the film [0058] and eliminate critically high acid content at the edge regions [0057].
Regarding Claim 4, Nathanson further teaches the rollers may be supplied with more than one profiled section including concave, notched and flat shapes depending on size of the rollers, length of the materials to be compressed, spacing between components, and other characteristics and the rollers may include any number of profiled sections spaced and configured to accommodate a leading edge of a segment of material to be compressed [0063]-[0064] thus meeting the instant limitation of a plurality of electrodes arranged regularly at distances from each other are provided in the continuous web and at least one third elevation and one fourth elevation are provided on the pressing surface, and the fourth elevation has a smaller distance from the third elevation than the length of the electrodes in the longitudinal direction of the continuous web.
Regarding Claim 5, Bang further teaches the first elevation, the second elevation, the third elevation and the fourth elevation can be shaped and arranged such that they complement each other to form an elevation, the shape of which corresponds to the outer edge of the electrodes (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 6, Nathanson further teaches the pressing device comprises two press rollers with a circular cross section, which are arranged such that between their lateral surfaces a gap is provided through which the continuous web runs (Figs. 4-8).
Regarding Claim 7, Nathanson further teaches the gap has a gap width which is smaller than the thickness of the continuous web (Figs. 4-8- showing the compression of the continuous web)
Regarding Claim 8 and 20, Nathanson further teaches both rollers are profiled (Figs 4-8) thus meeting the instant limitation of the first elevation and/or the second elevation and/or the third elevation and/or the fourth elevation are arranged on a portion of the outer surface of one or both of the press rollers.
Bang also teaches the first elevation and/or the second elevation and/or the third elevation and/or the fourth elevation are arranged on a portion of the outer surface of one or both of the press rollers (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Bang further teaches the first elevation and the second elevation are arranged on the edge sides of the lateral surface (Fig. 5- edge regions 25).
Regarding Claim 10, Nathanson further teaches the third profiled portion and the fourth profiled portion are arranged parallel to the axes of rotation of the press rollers (Fig. 9C) thus meeting the instant limitation of the third elevation and the fourth elevation are arranged parallel to the axes of rotation of the press rollers.
Nathanson further teaches the rollers may be supplied with more than one profiled section including concave, notched and flat shapes depending on size of the rollers, length of the materials to be compressed, spacing between components, and other characteristics and the rollers may include any number of profiled sections spaced and configured to accommodate a leading edge of a segment of material to be compressed [0063]-[0064] thus meeting the instant limitation of the third elevation and the fourth elevation in the spread of the arc winding-up length of the outer surface have a distance from each other which is greater than the length of the electrodes in the longitudinal direction of the continuous web.
Regarding Claim 11, Nathanson further teaches the press rollers are arranged such that their axes of rotation are aligned parallel to each other (Figs. 4-8).
Regarding Claim 16, Nathanson further teaches the rollers may be supplied with more than one profiled section including concave, notched and flat shapes depending on size of the rollers, length of the materials to be compressed, spacing between components, and other characteristics and the rollers may include any number of profiled sections spaced and configured to accommodate a leading edge of a segment of material to be compressed [0063]-[0064] thus meeting the instant limitation of first elevations and/or second elevations and/or third elevations and/or fourth elevations are provided on the pressing surfaces, and the first elevations, second elevations, third elevations and/or fourth elevations of the pressing surfaces have different distances from each other and/or different depths and/or different shapes.
Regarding Claim 17, Nathanson further teaches the pressing surface is adjustable (Fig. 6- showing lifter 625).
Regarding Claim 18, Bang further teaches the pressing surface has a width which corresponds to the width of the continuous web or a multiple thereof (Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 19, Nathanson further teaches applying heat via the rollers [0023]; [0038] thus meeting the instant limitation of at least one elevation is heatable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under the doctrine of double patenting set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art to dependent Claims 12-15 is Nathanson (PGPub 2019/0389193) and Bang et al (WO2021089093) as set forth above. However, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the pressing device has at least one pressing belt which is arranged such that it comes into contact with one of the surfaces of the continuous web. Further, there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the devices of Nathanson and Bang to include the pressing device has at least one pressing belt which is arranged such that it comes into contact with one of the surfaces of the continuous web as there is no motivation to modify the shaped rollers of Nathanson, Bang, or Nakashima to include a pressing belt. Nykopp (WO1994028239A1) teaches utilizing a pressing belt on a continuous web of material but there is no motivation to combine the belt of Nykopp with the devices of Nathanson and Bang. Murata et al (JP2019029267 cited in IDS) teaches an alternative laminating apparatus comprising a belt with projection (Fig. 4) but this is a conveyance belt, not a pressing belt and there is no motivation to combine the belt of Murata with the devices of Nathanson and Bang to achieve a pressing operation. Thus, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrianna Konves whose telephone number is (571)272-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00 MST (Arizona).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abbas Rashid can be reached at (571) 270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1748 6/17/26
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
